Roar

FEATURED ARTICLES ABOUT ROAR

Karen S. Kim BURBANK -- The League of Women Voters will host a forum Sept. 8 for the special election of the Restore Our Airport Rights initiative, or Measure A. Measure A will be put to Burbank voters in the form of an all mail-in ballot to be tallied on Oct. 9, with ballots being mailed out as early as Sept. 10. The ROAR initiative demands that the city implement airport limiting measures, including a cap on flights and passengers, a mandatory curfew and an agreement from the airport to limit expansion.

I am very insulted by Councilman Dave Golonski's 60 seconds for 60 days trial period change to the first period of oral communications. Only a few short months ago, Mr. Golonski was panhandling for votes to be reelected. Smiling, shaking hands, pinching babies' cheeks and promising, if elected, to serve the people of Burbank. Serve the people? How can you serve the people, Mr. Golonski, if you don't have more than 60 seconds to listen to them? Golonski's 60 seconds for 60 days trial period is perfect timing.

In linking the restriction of the oral communications period with the coming October election of the ROAR initiative, Mr. Ron Vanderford ("Survey says," June 20) is applying a conspiracy theory, which is referred to constantly by him and his associates. They claim the council, specifically City Council members Dave Golonski, Stacey Murphy and David Laurell are plotting against them to defeat the ROAR initiative and to clandestinely encourage -- along with the cities of Glendale and Pasadena -- to double and triple the number of flights out of Burbank.

According to your July 11 editorial, "ROAR measure generates heat, not much light," all sides in the debate over the ROAR initiative should declare a moratorium on rhetoric and get down to the facts and the real issues in the airport expansion controversy. We agree. Here's a challenge of our own. Is the Leader ready to play a responsible role in helping sort out the wheat from the chaff and ensure that voters are exposed to this information so they can make informed judgments before casting their mail-in ballots?

Karen S. Kim BURBANK -- Faced with an unfamiliar election format, City Clerk Judie Sarquiz said her earlier estimates for the cost of an all mail-in ballot election were a little off. "That was me never having run an election like this and not knowing," Sarquiz said. "That was me making a guess." Sarquiz had predicted back in April that running an all-mail ballot election -- rather than a traditional election -- for the Restore Our Airport Rights initiative could save the city at least $15,000.

This week, the City Council approved spending $15,000 to educate voters on the unique system we'll be trying out in September and October, when residents vote in the special election for the ballot initiative advanced by a political action committee, ROAR. That's roughly triple the amount spent to boost awareness in the municipal elections this past spring. But the vote-by-mail system proposed by City Clerk Judie Sarquiz and seconded by the council is different enough from the way we've always done things to warrant an extensive education program.

Karen S. Kim BURBANK -- With Burbank's first all mail-in ballot election rapidly approaching, the City Council approved Tuesday an education campaign informing residents of the unfamiliar process. "We always do a voter education campaign," City Clerk Judie Sarquiz said. "But because this is a different type of election, we want to make sure people understand how it works." The all mail-in ballot election is for the Restore Our Airport Rights initiative -- a measure requiring that the city implement restrictions on airport activity, including a curfew on flights, an agreement from the Airport Authority to limit expansion and a cap on flights and passengers.

No matter how many knives have been stuck into the heart of the Restore Our Airport Rights initiative, it has refused to die, time and time again. The mail-in ballot measure penned by members of an anti-airport expansion grassroots organization has lived, thrived and leaked a certain noxious gas that forces all in its invisible wake to talk incessantly of either its absolutely wonderful qualities or its incredibly asinine ideas. The most recent example of this childish quibbling between the warring factions of the two camps of belief were the arguments and rebuttals that will be read by Burbank voters voting either yea or nay when the ballots are shipped out on Oct. 9. At times the language is laughable.

This letter is in response to the letter from Jim Avery ("Permit expansion in backwoods Burbank," June 27). While I disagree with Mr. Avery's opinion that growth in Burbank almost automatically equates to progress, I do appreciate the thoughtful tone of his letter and that he did not resort to labeling those of us with a different opinion as gadflies. Shortly after the November elections, an article in the Los Angeles Times noted that approximately 40 no-growth, or slow-growth, measures were included on the ballot throughout L.A. County and that almost all of them passed.